“This war, if continued, using mercenaries, can lead to nuclear general war. The major powers principally threatened today by this mercenary operation, are two of the world’s largest nations: China and India, [and]Russia. If these nations are pushed to the wall by a continuing escalation of a war which is modeled on the wars which the British ran against Russia, China, and so forth during the 19th Century and early 20th Century, this will lead to the point that Russia has to make the decision to accept disintegration of Russia as a nation, or to resort to the means it has, to exact terrible penalties on those who are attacking it, going closer and closer to the source, the forces behind the mercenaries...”

STOP WORLD WAR III

In a national television broadcast, Storm Over Asia, published in 1999, Lyndon LaRouche made a chilling and prescient forecast: that the mercenary wars that the British Empire and its allies were waging on the borders of Russia, China, India, and other countries, would “lead to nuclear general war.” Since that broadcast, this British geo-political strategy against the key nations of Eurasia has only escalated, and the world now finds itself on the brink of none other than World War III.

Watch the original national television broadcast titled “Storm Over Asia,” published by Lyndon LaRouche in 1999.

Any global war fought in the present thermonuclear age would have no winners, as LaRouchePAC documents in the feature film “Unsurvivable”. Such a war would lead to the near or total extinction of the human species on this planet. True patriots in the United States have understood this and have acted to prevent such a war at all costs.

The world has long since passed the time when armed conflict can be the solution to international problems. There would be no winners. So we have to proceed with care in an age when the human race can obliterate itself... Now, in the thermonuclear age, any misjudgment on either side about the intentions of the other could rain more devastation in several hours than has been wrought in all the wars of human history.

— President John F. Kennedy

However, presently, the United States is in the thrall of the historically British imperial policy, and under Obama finds itself playing the role of the aggressor in an escalating confrontation with Russia and China, both thermonuclear powers. Unless the Obama policy is immediately and radically reversed, there is no guarentee that humanity will escape a global war of extinction.

Lyndon LaRouche, who has long played a prominent role in global strategic policy since his personal involvement in shaping what became President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), is on the record since the initiation of NATO operations in Libya and the killing of Qadaffi, warning that the Middle East would prove to be the “New Balkans” and that the situation would cascade rapidly into a Third World War. Events in this region since then testify to the accuracy of LaRouche’s warnings at that time, with the proliferation of failed states through regime-change operations, establishing vast territories of ungovernability exploited as save-havens by terrorist organizations engaged in brutal sectarian religious war. Meanwhile, some of the United States’ closest allies in this region, most prominently Saudi Arabia, continue to be the leading sources of funding and logistical support for these terrorist networks.

At the same time, an aggressive encirclement policy is being carried out against both Russia and China, two leading nuclear powers: BMD systems have been deployed on Russia’s border, degrading their nuclear deterrence capability; the Asia Pivot strategy is bringing increased troop presence and naval power to bear in the regions surrounding China; and a series of so-called “colored revolutions” have been funded and coordinated by leading western powers to destabilize governments historically friendly with both of these nations. The most prominent case is in Ukraine, where western governments have openly supported known extremist neo-fascist parties in running a coup against a democratically elected government, installing a beligerently anti-Russian regime right on Russia’s border, and precipitating a rapid escalation of confrontation and military build-up stretching all the way to the Baltic States.

Both Russia and China have openly warned that they will not surrender to threats and intimidation, as exemplified in President Putin’s remarks to the Valdai International Discussion Club on October 24, 2014.

Putin Speech to Valdai International Discussion Club

At the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club on the theme of "The World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules," Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the international situation in undiplomatic, truthful terms. The Valdai Club was attended this year by 108 experts, historians, and political analysts from 25 countries, including 62 foreign participants. What follows are excerpts from his remarks:
"Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realize that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.

"First of all, changes in the world order ... have usually been accompanied by, if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.

"Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented, and deformed.

"The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called victors in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests.

"International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

"In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This groups ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

"The very notion of national sovereignty became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: The greater the loyalty towards the worlds sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regimes legitimacy.

"The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of supra-legal legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence, too, that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that Big Brother is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

"Let's ask ourselves: How comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue, and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States' exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

"Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

"A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts, it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

"Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals, but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

"They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The West, if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on U.S. soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism.

"Only the current Egyptian leadership's determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?

"As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

"Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organizations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

"Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy, and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader.

"Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states.

"I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on.

"Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday, and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

"Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today's demographic, economic, and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about, too.

"So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules, even if they may be strict and inconvenient—but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.

"Russia has made its choice—we want to develop our economy and develop democratic values. We work with our counterparts in the Shanghai Cooperation, the BRICS union for example. We want our opinions to be respected likewise. We all need to be cautious to not make hasty and dangerous steps. Some of the players on the global front have forgotten about the need for this."

Map representing the encirclement of Russia and China through local conflicts, deployment of troop and naval forces, and BMD systems.

“The threat of general thermonuclear war is currently greater than it has ever been... We’re on the verge of a thermonuclear war, involving China, Russia, and a number of other nations in that whole region. Unless that high potential is suppressed, by some fortuitous good action, or at least moderate action, we are in the danger of a general, global thermonuclear war... The world would be generally destroyed and torn apart, if this thing is not brought under control. And you can’t just say, ‘well, maybe it won’t happen’ — that’s not a good enough answer. What assurance do you have, that it can be prevented, at this stage? That’s our problem.”

— Lyndon LaRouche · October 28, 2014

THE BLAIR DOCTRINE

The same year that LaRouche issued his warning in the “Storm Over Asia” broadcast, the doctrine according to which the regime-change and colored revolution agenda has been carried out over the past decade-and-a-half was being spelled out by the then-Prime Minister of Tony Blair in a speech in Chicago before the Economic Club on April 22, 1999. What Blair elaborated as a “post-Westphalian” order became known as the Blair Doctrine, in which so-called “humanitarian intervention” or “right to protect” replaces of the principle of non-interference in the sovereign affairs of another nation-state as was established by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Blair stated:

“We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not... We cannot turn our backs on conflicts and the violation of human rights within other countries if we want still to be secure. On the eve of a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of organising our international institutions... We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community.”

Three years later, Blair would be instumental in launching the invasion of Iraq on the basis of falsified intelligence claiming the imminent danger of WMD. Meanwhile, Blair continued to push his post-Westphalian doctrine. In a speech on March 5, 2004, Blair was even more explicit:

“For me, before Sept. 11, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely, that a country’s internal affairs are for it, and you don’t interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance...That is the struggle which engages us. It is a new type of war.”

In professing this imperial doctrine, Tony Blair was destroying the very foundations of international law which have provided the basis for civilized relations between states for the past half millenium. This policy is in direct violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter which states:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”— United Nations Charter, Article 2

Video detailing the coup in Ukraine as a “colored revolution” deployed according to the playbook of Gene Sharp to destabilize Russia.

ORIGINS OF POLICY

Compilation of the entire LPACTV “Who We Fight” mini-series, an illustration of the operations of the British Empire against the United States, in the period 1941-1968.

President Franklin Roosevelt’s policy throughout the Second World War was to first defeat the immediate threat of fascism and to restore peace to the planet, but second, once the war had concluded, to build an alliance among nations, keystoned by Russia and the United States, to develop the territories of every continent as the United States had been developed under his New Deal, and finally rid the planet of all forms of imperialism, the British Empire included, as documented by his son in As He Saw It.

Excerpt from As He Saw It by Elliot Roosevelt

The following eyewitness account of the struggle between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Sir Winston Churchill, during negotiations for the Atlantic Charter at the naval base of Argentia in Newfoundland in March 1941, is taken from the book As He Saw It, by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946). Elliott Roosevelt, FDR’s son, was his aide at all but one of the Big Three conferences during World War II. A continuous theme throughout the book, is the clash between the two leaders on the issue of Britain’s colonies, as FDR fought for his vision of a postwar world without empire. The following are two short excerpts:

It must be remembered that at this time Churchill was the war leader, Father only the president of a state which had indicated its sympathies in a tangible fashion. Thus, Churchill still arrogated the conversational lead, still dominated the after-dinner hours. But the difference was beginning to be felt.

And it was evidenced first, sharply, over Empire.

Father started it.

“Of course,” he remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, “of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade.”

He paused. The P.M.’s head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.

“No artificial barriers,” Father pursued. “As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.” His eye wandered innocently around the room.

Churchill shifted in his armchair. “The British Empire trade agreements” he began heavily, “are—”

Father broke in. “Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.”

Churchill’s neck reddened and he crouched forward. “Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England’s ministers.”

“You see,” said Father slowly, “it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.

“I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can’t be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now—”

“Who’s talking eighteenth-century methods?”

“Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation — by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.”

Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. Hopkins was grinning. Commander Thompson, Churchill’s aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.

“You mentioned India,” he growled.

“Yes. I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.”

“What about the Philippines?”

“I’m glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they’ve gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down. . . .”

“There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements.”

“They’re artificial. . .”

“They’re the foundation of our greatness.”

“The peace,” said Father firmly, “cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. Will anyone suggest that Germany’s attempt to dominate trade in central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?”

It was an argument that could have no resolution between these two men.

. . .

The conversation resumed the following evening:

Gradually, very gradually, and very quietly, the mantle of leadership was slipping from British shoulders to American. We saw it when, late in the evening, there came one flash of the argument that had held us hushed the night before. In a sense, it was to be the valedictory of Churchill’s outspoken Toryism, as far as Father was concerned. Churchill had got up to walk about the room. Talking, gesticulating, at length he paused in front of Father, was silent for a moment, looking at him, and then brandished a stubby forefinger under Father’s nose.

“Mr. President,” he cried, “I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it. But in spite of that” — and his forefinger waved — “in spite of that,we know that you constitute our only hope. And” — his voice sank dramatically— “you know that we know it. You know that we know that without America, the Empire won’t stand.”

Churchill admitted, in that moment, that he knew the peace could only be won according to precepts which the United States of America would lay down. And in saying what he did, he was acknowledging that British colonial policy would be a dead duck, and British attempts to dominate world trade would be a dead duck, and British ambitions to play off the U.S.S.R. against the U.S.A. would be a dead duck.

Or would have been, if Father had lived.

However, as soon as Roosevelt died, a different policy took over. Truman authorized the dropping of the atomic bombs, not as a military tactic to bring about the surrender of an already-defeated Japan, but in truth, to lay the groundwork for another, future, more horrible war — World War III, in which the principle enemy would be Russia. Winston Churchill delivered his infamous “Iron Curtain” speech, estalishing the so-called special relationship. The British Empire knew full well, that if Roosevelt’s vision had been adopted, an alliance between the United States and Russia would have meant the end of their empire. Prepared to stop at nothing to preserve their imperial system, the British were willing to even provoke a nuclear war between the world’s superpowers to prevent such an alliance for development from taking place.

Henry Wallace, the Vice President under Roosevelt preceeding Truman, understood full well the strategy which the British were playing:

Excerpts from Henry Wallace's diary:

OCTOBER 15, 1945
Apparently the purpose of Britain is to promote an unbreachable break between us and Russia... Britain’s game in international affairs has always been intrigue... Britain may have plenty of excuse for playing the game the way she does; it may fit into her geographical position, but we must not play her game.

OCTOBER 17, 1945
I am convinced that the British slant is to stir up the maximum of distrust between the United States and Russia... British policy clearly is to provoke the maximum distrust between the United States and Russia and thus prepare the groundwork for World War III.

OCTOBER 23, 1945
As I listened to the President giving his message to Congress on universal military training and heard him speak about preparing the United States to meet any aggressor nation, I couldn’t help thinking about the effect the message would have on Russia. It was almost like the prelude to the declaration of World War III.

A NEW INCLUSIVE SECURITY ARCHITECTURE

On September 24, 2014, Helga Zepp-LaRouche issued a call for an emergency international conference to establish a New Inclusive World Security Architecture as an explicitly anti-imperial order of relations among nations for the preservation of peace through mutual development.

Call For New Inclusive Security Architecture

We Need a New, Inclusive World Security Architecture

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

In the referendum on the independence of Scotland, London once again got its way, by the skin of its teeth—at least for the time being—thanks to a massive campaign of scare tactics. But even the New York Times commented that the anger expressed in Scotland against Westminster's policies—in favor of the super-rich, imperial wars, etc.—is paradigmatic of the growing anger of the populations of the United States and the Eurozone about the blatant failure of the establishment's policy.

In stark contrast, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi are proceeding to build an alternative economic system and have declared themselves optimistic, noting that China and India together account for 35% of the human race and are together writing the screenplay for the future.

Indeed, Xi's three-day state visit to India represents a qualitative breakthrough in Sino-Indian relations. Not only does China intend, in the next five years, to invest $20 billion in the expansion of India's rapid transit systems, the modernization of its railway stations, industrial parks, power transmission equipment, and auto parts production—it also wants, in return, to open its market for Indian pharmaceuticals, agricultural products, and films. Other agreements were reached on cooperation in the development of nuclear energy, the peaceful use of space, a sister-city relationship between Shanghai and Mumbai, as well as cultural exchanges, and—especially importantly—it was agreed to prioritize settling the country's outstanding border dispute, once and for all.

Solving this question threatens to leave the Western media and think-tanks with nothing left to say that would satisfy their need, bordering on the absurd, for nitpicking. Failing to recognize the grand design behind this summit, the Western media have tried to outdo one another in describing only the supposed geopolitical conflicts of interest between the two nations.

"No man is a hero to his valet; not, however, because the man is not a hero, but because the valet is a valet," wrote Hegel in his Phenomenology, describing this state of mind. What these media representatives and think-tanks don't understand, from their petty, geopolitical perspective, is the qualitative change that has been underway for more than a year, with Xi's New Silk Road policy, and the drive of the BRICS countries for real development. More and more countries of Asia, Latin America, and Africa are defying the conditionalities of the IMF and World Bank and are creating their own development banks, the AIIB [Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank], NDB [New Development Bank], and a bank of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which are dedicated to financing only real economic projects and not speculation.

Underlying this is the determination to finally tackle the shift from underdevelopment and poverty, to the defense of the general welfare of their people. What the scribblers and talking heads cannot imagine, is that there are governments today that truly represent the interests of their nations and of mankind—and not those of the banks, as is common in Europe and the United States.

The growing alliance of the BRICS countries [Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa], the Union of South America (UNASUR) countries, and the ASEAN and SCO members in Asia, in which such countries as Egypt, Nicaragua, and South Korea must also be counted, is not only joined by the common perspective of economic development, but also by the recognition that the current strategy of confrontation against Russia on the part of the U.S. administration, Great Britain, NATO, and the EU, is causing the imminent threat of global thermonuclear war.

- Threat of World War -

Prof. Han Xudong of the National Defense University of the People's Liberation Army, in an extraordinary article headlined, "As Possibility of a Third World War Exists, China Needs To Be Prepared," deals with this question. "As the Ukrainian crisis deepens, international observers have become more and more concerned about a direct military clash between the US and Russia. Once an armed rivalry erupts, it is likely to extend to the [rest of the] globe. And it is not impossible that a world war could break out," he wrote in the People's Daily on Sept. 16. "...Currently, the world has entered an era of new forms of global war. Outer space, the Internet and the sea have become the battlefields of rivalry... China should not be pushed into a passive position where it is vulnerable to attacks. We must bear a third world war in mind when developing military forces, especially the sea and air forces."

Pope Francis said essentially the same thing, on the occasion of a commemoration of the outbreak of World War I. "A third world war in pieces" is already being waged, with crimes, massacres, destruction, he said. And German historian Michael Stuermer, writing in Die Welt, gave the diagnosis that since the Ukraine crisis began, world politics has found itself in an experimental mode, in which the time-tested rules of crisis prevention and crisis management have been thrown overboard, and senior staff are inexperienced in the management of emergencies. The saber-rattling, he wrote, fails to take account of the limitless possibilities of destruction and self-destruction. The security architecture that emerged during the Cold War and that ended in German unification—amazingly, without catastrophe—was an era of undeclared small wars with no beginning and no end, extending from Indochina/Vietnam to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. In the Ukraine crisis, he wrote, both sides have acted without a goal or an exit strategy; nobody knows where it will end. One escalation drives another, and the reasoned imperatives of the long nuclear peace seem to be forgotten.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev, for his part, addressed the situation at an economic conference in Sochi recently: "Essentially the entire system of European security is threatened, as well as fundamental values, further globalization, and basically the entire concept of peaceful development. I have a feeling that the West has completely forgotten that Russia has its own national interests. History clearly shows that all attempts to exert pressure on Russia by such measures [sanctions], have been in vain. We will not give in to any political blackmail. We are the largest country in the world, a nuclear power in which 150 million people live, an area with immense natural resources and a huge market for goods, services, and investments. The West, however, acts as though Russia simply does not exist on the world map."

From the Chinese military to the Pope, the Russian government, and growing segments in all European nations, people see that World War III has actually already started, that all the rules of war prevention have been thrown overboard and there is actually no longer a security system. Why then do we not immediately pull the emergency brake and stop this madness, this train that is hurtling at full speed toward a wall behind which there is only a great void?

- Call for an Emergency Conference -

We immediately need a global emergency conference with only a single theme: How should a global, inclusive security architecture be designed which guarantees the existence and security of all nations on the planet?

It is obvious that the strategic crisis began with the broken promises to Russia at the time of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, namely that NATO would never be extended up to the borders of Russia. We must start again from that point and the equally obvious point, that in 1991, there were no convincing reasons to exclude Russia from alliances, but rather to expand NATO and the EU further to the east; the intention to encircle Russia and eventually render it indefensible can no longer be denied.

President Xi has repeatedly argued that there can be no security structure that grants security only to a few states, while others remain in chaos and danger; only an inclusive security architecture can guarantee world peace. Precisely such a security architecture, which encompasses all States, must urgently be placed on the agenda, if we do not want to collectively kill ourselves off.

The obvious economic basis for such an inclusive security approach is the New Silk Road program, which China is working to bring about and whose spirit the aforementioned alliances have embraced. The Chinese government has repeatedly stressed that this New Silk Road is an open concept, which every nation can join.

The human species will survive only if we learn the lessons of the two world wars of the 20th Century and stop thinking in geopolitical categories. We must replace this imperial, oligarchical approach with a new paradigm: that the common aims of mankind are the priority for everyone. This is also the view of "the coincidence of opposites" that Nicholas of Cusa put forward in the 15th Century, in his Coincidentia Oppositorum: that this is the only way to achieve "concordance in the macrocosm."

Now we have arrived at the point where our survival as a species depends on achieving this level of thinking.

CONGRESSIONAL PRESS CONFERENCES

December 19, 2012 - Rep. Walter Jones is joined by Rep. Charles Rangel and Retired military officers Colonel W. Patrick Lang and LTC. Anthony Shaffer in an event moderated by Jeffrey Steinberg on the subject of Syria in December 2012 on Capitol Hill.

In the increasingly tense countdown to war between Russia and NATO, the Russian leadership’s superior sense of reality is that it is aware that the trans-Atlantic nations have a bankrupt financial system ready to... read more

In the increasingly tense countdown to war between Russia and NATO, the Russian leadership’s superior sense of reality is that it is aware that the trans-Atlantic nations have a bankrupt...read more